W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: [jena-dev] Re: Use cases for Reification in RDF Triplestores

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:38:31 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030110090809.035c3830@localhost>
To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>, seth@robustai.net, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Bob,

With Pat leading the technical discussion, I'm just going to drop in a 
couple of minor process points here.

At 13:41 09/01/2003 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote:

[...]

>>Yes, the WG has decided, nodes of rdf:type rdf:Statement *are* statings, 
>>I think you guys should accept that and move on.
>
>I apologize for my ignorance on WG decisions; I missed this particular 
>one.  I would appreciate someone mailing me a pointer to the published 
>decision.

As a general rule, resolution of WG issues can be found from the WG Issues 
document.  In this case the URL to appropriate section of that doc is:

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements

There is also another issue which may be related to your concerns, that the 
WG postponed for consideration by a future WG:

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-contexts

The WG is now (I hope) very close to publishing its last call 
documents.  If you remain unconvinced about the WG's decision, I suggest 
you make this comment again as a last call comment.  The WG will consider 
that comment and any support it receives.

A couple of other remarks:

   o there are two concepts - statements and statings and only one bit of 
vocabulary.  The WG, for reasons that Pat has explained picked one for the 
existing vocabulary, and as Pat also mentioned,  that does not preclude 
you, or anyone else, from defining new vocabulary for the missing 
concept.  That is the sort of thing that could be worked out in the 
interest group, and possibly published as a W3C note.

   o I have an association with the Jena project, and being careful to keep 
my role in the WG distinct, I do know that the current Jena implementation 
of reification is an engineering compromise designed to meet the pragmatic 
needs of users.  As WG co-chair, I'd encourage you to work with tool 
developers to explore how to meet your needs.  Such practical experience 
will be invaluable input to a future WG considering the postponed issue.

Brian
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 05:05:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT